Steven Roth v. Richard M. Behfarin

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 511) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT 511 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 511 HEARING DATE: September 3, 2026 CASE NAME: Steven Roth v. Richard M. Behfarin CASE NO.: 20STCV29458 MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Steven Roth RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant/Judgment Debtor Richard Behfarin REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An order for judgment debtor Richard M. Behfarin to assign to Judgment Creditor the insurance policy loan value of Prudential Life Insurance Policy number V0 0003 712 and all right to the value of loan payment thereunder minus the exemption of $13,975.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion for assignment order is GRANTED, as modified; 2. Judgment Debtor Richard M. Behfarin is to assign to Judgment Creditor Steven Roth the insurance policy loan value of Prudential Life Insurance Policy number V0 0003 712 and all right to the value of loan payment thereunder minus the exemption of $17,525.00. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On May 30, 2025,¿the court issued its Judgment on Final Statement of Decision.¿ ¿ On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Entry of Judgment.¿ ¿ On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a¿Memorandum of Costs.¿ ¿ On August 12, 2025, Defendant¿timely¿filed a Motion to Tax Costs which the court DENIED.

On February 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed applications and order for appearance and examination of third parties Jack Behfarin and Nahid Nazarian Behfarin which the court GRANTED.

On April 13, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for protective order on the third-party examinations which the court DENIED. On July 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for assignment order. On July 21, 2026, the court, on its own motion, advanced the hearing date on the motion for assignment order to September 3, 2026. On August 31, 2026, Defendant filed an untimely opposition. [1] LEGAL STANDARD: Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Sec. 708.510(a) states, in relevant part:¿¿ ¿¿ (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments:¿¿ ¿¿ (1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under¿an earnings¿withholding order.¿¿ (2) Rents.¿¿ (3) Commissions.¿¿¿ (4) Royalties.¿¿ (5) Payments due¿from¿a patent or copyright.¿¿ (6) Insurance policy loan value.¿¿¿ ¿¿ CCP Sec. 708.510(c), further provides:¿¿¿ ¿¿ [I]n¿determining¿whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment¿pursuant to¿subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following:¿¿ ¿¿ (1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor.¿¿ (2) Payments the judgment debtor¿is required to¿make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support.¿¿ (3) The amount¿remaining¿due on the money judgment.¿¿ (4) The amount being or to be

received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.¿¿ ¿¿ Construing all the applicable statutes together, it seems clear that the "assignment order" contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 708.510,¿ et seq. ¿must include a court order that assigns a right to payment outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to do so).¿¿¿ ¿¿ The¿court may also issue "an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned" "upon a showing of need for the order." (CCP Sec. 708.520(a), (b).)¿ ANALYSIS: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor contends relief is warranted because the statute allows them to pursuant the insurance policy loan value and, based on investigation, it appears this is Judgment Debtor's only asset subject to execution.

Defendant/Judgment Debtor argues Plaintiff utilized an outdated exemption amount and that the court should exercise its discretion not to assign the remaining loan value because it risks forfeiting the policy altogether due to precarious financial ability to continue paying premiums. "Unmatured [life insurance] policies are not subject to collection efforts" by a judgment creditor "except insofar as they have loan value." (Bagby v. Davis (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 652, 661.) "[A] creditor who wants to collect on that loan value. . . must instead obtain an assignment order." (Ibid.)

A policy's loan value "shall be equivalent to the cash surrender value of the policy . . . ." (Ins. Code Sec. 1236.) Here, an assignment order is warranted. First, there is a Judgment of $144,613.78 in Plaintiff's favor. (Declaration of Lisa Spiwak (Spiwak Decl.) at 6:8-9.) Second, Defendant has not made any payments towards the Judgment. (Id. at 6:12-13.) Third, Defendant is the policy owner and beneficiary of Prudential Life Insurance Policy number V0 003 712. (Id. at 6:14-17.) This policy has a loan value of $52,781.62 as of March 31, 2026. (Ibid.; see also Exhibit 1.)

Fourth, Plaintiff believes Defendant has no other assets subject to immediate execution to satisfy the Judgment. [2] (Id. at 6:18-20.) Taken together, the factors weigh in favor of an assignment order. Defendant, in turn, did not demonstrate that an assignment order is inappropriate. Notably absent is any evidence supporting his argument that the loan policy value is strictly necessary to support his family or to prevent "catastrophic policy lapse." Practically speaking, the court cannot evaluate Defendant's contentions without such evidence. (See California Coastal Com. v.

Allen (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [noting that the judgment debtor provided argument, not evidence, supporting homestead exemption.]) But there is more. The entire loan policy value is

not subject to assignment. Plaintiff correctly points out that the statute provides an exemption of $13,975. (CCP Sec. 704.100(b).) However, Defendant also correctly points out that CCP Sec. 703.150(b) and (d) increased the exemption. The current exemption for the aggregate loan value of unmatured life insurance policies is $17,525. (Cal. Judicial Council form EJ-156 [Current Dollar Amounts of Exemptions From Enforcement of Judgments] (Rec. July 20, 2026).) As noted above, the current policy loan value is $52,781.62. (Spiwak Decl. at 6:14-17, Exhibit 1.)

Subtracting the exemption amount of $17,525 leaves $35,256.62 subject to assignment. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for assignment order, as modified. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion for assignment order is GRANTED, as modified; 2. Judgment Debtor Richard M. Behfarin is to assign to Judgment Creditor Steven Roth the insurance policy loan value of Prudential Life Insurance Policy number V0 0003 712 and all right to the value of loan payment thereunder minus the exemption of $17,525.00.

Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 3, 2026 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court

The court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d) ["No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late-filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate"].)

The court infers that Plaintiff's "information and belief" is based on the various debtor examinations he conducted in this matter. | Home -->)" -->